"Romantic" also shows your mindset: planting footprints. Have you read any of the above discussion? We're not talking about adventure. You also know that none of the answers to the world's problems are off-world?

Click to expand...

It's pretty certain. "Mining space resources" is one of those rather romantic ideas. The revenue is not worth the expenses.

As this point in time, I have to ask: do we really need to do it? Space exploration, as romantic and exciting as it is, is luxury. Luxury we can't afford right now.

The billions needed for a manned mission to Mars could be well spent in other areas. Might be a tough thing to say, but it's the truth.

Click to expand...

I also disagree with this.
Beyond the unsupported dictates you've used ('it's the truth'), finding a new niche for humanity to expand into, historically, always lead to increasing prosperity; on the other hand, social programs historically proved highly inefficient in combating poverty, etc.
Plus - overall, humanity is today richer than at any other time in history.

If successful, Musk&co will do more to ensure humanity's prosperity than all the social programs in existence put together.

PS - You obviously have no idea of the resources to be found in asteroids.

Things aren't going to get cheaper--but like WWII, if something is important--it costs what it costs.

Being a starfaring species is something we are going to have to do--and you have to stay in the game. Profits be damned. Its not about romance,but survival. We have to first get beyond this idea of not having anything more than what someone says we need.

The Wright brothers didn't need to play with flying machines, they could have been medical doctors.

But what if all we did was what some commissar said was necessary? If all we did was raise food and meds, then all we become as humans is walking stomachs. We have to push onwards. We need existing weather satellites today. Imagine if someone raided space budgets just to build more hospitals. Then we wouldn't have weather sats and deaths would actually be higher, even if we did what some thought was prudent.

That was back when folks thought that Mars was just the Moon with bad weather.

What we do now is have Delta (or Atlas rockets) launch warheads that slam into Mars atmosphere.

Larger spacecraft may brake, with payloads coming in more slowly. That will require larger and larger LVs, as Musk is planning for MCT. We have a lot of vertical weld tools and tankage fabrication being paid for under SLS. Same with the F-1 having new life. If this work is completed, Musk might benefit from that.

Long-term survival and overall advacement and achievements are a part of humanity's prosperity. Arguing whether we should do space travel is like wondering if we should leave our cave when there are more pressing needs. Sure we do, but thanks to a few crazy cavemen who made it to Europe and Asia, and from there somehow miraculously ended up in Australia and the Americas (holy shit), we maximized the chances that our civilization makes it anywhere. If we were shy to go to places we had no obvious benefit in going, we could be sitting in a cave somewhere in Africa wondering if those Homo Callidus flying helicopters overhead are gods.

I know it looks like a stupid analogy, because Mars is more barren than post-Apocalyptic Antarctica, but to the cavemen it made no sense at the time to travel far too, no matter that now, in hindsight, it looks like the wise thing to do it. When a deadly virus kills all humans on one of the planets we live on, the rest of us will be more thankful that we did the unwise thing to go where we had no business being, instead of fighting world hunger on a doomed world.

On top of that, it is not like we're using a huge part of humanity's resources for space travel. With the space travel money you couldn't make a dent in the hunger problem, or any other major problem. It's pocket change. For something that reshapes humanity's future. And inspires people, contributing to the welfare of the entire world. When humans land on Mars, you'd bring hope, joy and pride among all people on Earth, including some of the people who have trouble finding what to eat.

We have to push onwards. We need existing weather satellites today. Imagine if someone raided space budgets just to build more hospitals. Then we wouldn't have weather sats and deaths would actually be higher, even if we did what some thought was prudent.

Click to expand...

That's the point. Why waste money on getting to Mars or farer away? Certainly won't help building weather satellites or something else we need HERE.

That's the point. Why waste money on getting to Mars or farer away? Certainly won't help building weather satellites or something else we need HERE.

Click to expand...

Could you have picked a worse example? Getting to Mars in the past has helped us develop new technologies which apply directly to weather satellites. Musk started SpaceX to get to Mars. The Falcon 9 series of rockets is already causing a reduction in price per KG to orbit directly effecting weather satellites.

Good thing you weren't in charge of the purse strings when Columbus went looking for money to "waste" on his expedition.

Good thing you weren't in charge of the purse strings when Columbus went looking for money to "waste" on his expedition.

Click to expand...

The funny part is that Columbus was going on a mission to a non-existent location based on phony science, with absolutely no convincing reason for making his journey. And it still lead to world-changing results. But let's dismiss things that actually have arguments to support them.

The funny part is that Columbus was going on a mission to a non-existent location based on phony science, with absolutely no convincing reason for making his journey. And it still lead to world-changing results. But let's dismiss things that actually have arguments to support them.

Also his intended destination was real and the science for a round Earth was not phony.

Click to expand...

I think later centuries owe a huge apology to the poor people of the 15th century for shamelessly replacing them with straw men. They never claimed the Earth was flat. That's just silly. It was Mr. Columbus who ignored the scientific knowledge about the Earth's roundness to support his mission, not those who detracted his flawed ideas about the location of Asia which did not exist where he was headed. Something everyone knew, except Columbus.

That's what your own link says:

Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus popularized the idea that Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because many Catholic theologians insisted that the Earth was flat. In fact, most educated Westerners had understood that the Earth was spherical at least since the time of Aristotle, who lived in the 4th century BC and whose works were widely studied and revered in Medieval Europe. [...] In Columbus's time, the techniques of celestial navigation, which use the position of the sun and the stars in the sky, together with the understanding that the Earth is a sphere, had long been in use by astronomers and were beginning to be implemented by mariners.

Where Columbus did differ from the view accepted by scholars in his day was in his estimate of the westward distance from Europe to Asia. Columbus's ideas in this regard were based on three factors: his low estimate of the size of the Earth, his high estimate of the size of the Eurasian landmass, and his belief that Japan and other inhabited islands lay far to the east of the coast of China. In all three of these issues Columbus was both wrong and at odds with the scholarly consensus of his day.

Click to expand...

He got lucky that he found the Americas there. But if the Pacific and the Atlantic had switched places, he would have found only disappointment.

I disagree. Wherever humans go on Earth there are a few constants which never vary and are sort of important. Like gravity and y'know a breathable atmosphere, and unless they're very unlucky a means of obtaining water and food.

None of those constants are there as soon as you leave the planet. So if you break down you're stuffed. If you run out of food or water or heating or air, you're stuffed. If your life support fails on Mars you're stuffed. If you get a serious illness which requires specialist treatment you're stuffed. And so on. You can build as much redundancy as you like into a life support system on a hostile planet but all it takes is one fire and you're toast because you can't run outside in your pyjamas.

I disagree. Wherever humans go on Earth there are a few constants which never vary and are sort of important. Like gravity and y'know a breathable atmosphere, and unless they're very unlucky a means of obtaining water and food.

None of those constants are there as soon as you leave the planet. So if you break down you're stuffed. If you run out of food or water or heating or air, you're stuffed. If your life support fails on Mars you're stuffed. If you get a serious illness which requires specialist treatment you're stuffed. And so on. You can build as much redundancy as you like into a life support system on a hostile planet but all it takes is one fire and you're toast because you can't run outside in your pyjamas.

Click to expand...

On earth, if you must go through a winter without provisions, you're stuffed. If your encounter meteorological turbulences without being prepared, you're stuffed. And so on.
Humans survive on earth as well as we do because of our technology - starting from fire, clothing, agriculture, etc. Without it - for example, tell me, how well do you think Las Vegas' citizens would fare?
And we do have the technology to survive in space, as well. Quite safely, too - despite your alarmism.

technology ... Without it - for example, tell me, how well do you think Las Vegas' citizens would fare?

Click to expand...

Off topic, but one of things that made me roll my eyes about the original V series was that the aliens were stealing water from Los Angeles... which was a desert before humans irrigated it, and then built a huge city on top of a major fault line. "Danger" is our middle name.

I disagree. Wherever humans go on Earth there are a few constants which never vary and are sort of important. Like gravity and y'know a breathable atmosphere, and unless they're very unlucky a means of obtaining water and food.

None of those constants are there as soon as you leave the planet. So if you break down you're stuffed. If you run out of food or water or heating or air, you're stuffed. If your life support fails on Mars you're stuffed. If you get a serious illness which requires specialist treatment you're stuffed. And so on. You can build as much redundancy as you like into a life support system on a hostile planet but all it takes is one fire and you're toast because you can't run outside in your pyjamas.

Click to expand...

On earth, if you must go through a winter without provisions, you're stuffed. If your encounter meteorological turbulences without being prepared, you're stuffed. And so on.
Humans survive on earth as well as we do because of our technology - starting from fire, clothing, agriculture, etc. Without it - for example, tell me, how well do you think Las Vegas' citizens would fare?
And we do have the technology to survive in space, as well. Quite safely, too - despite your alarmism.

Any other arguments?

Click to expand...

Those aren't arguments. The fact that we evolved here means we are perfectly capable of surviving without technology. That we choose to use technology is irrelevant.

Humans evolved in warm/etc Africa.
We are NOT able to survive without technology in most habitats we occupy on Earth.
We would not be able to survive anywhere in our numbers without technology.
I notice you haven't answered my question about Las Vegas.

That we can survive quite well by using technology in inhospitable habitats - and have done so for thousands of years - is eminently relevant when talking about colonising a new habitat - space.